On 12/3/2024 7:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 02:30:33PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
>> @@ -458,6 +456,20 @@ void set_pte_enc_mask(pte_t *kpte, unsigned long pfn, pgprot_t new_prot);
>> void snp_kexec_finish(void);
>> void snp_kexec_begin(void);
>>
>> +static inline bool snp_is_vmpck_empty(struct snp_msg_desc *mdesc)
>> +{
>> + static const char zero_key[VMPCK_KEY_LEN] = {0};
>> +
>> + if (mdesc->vmpck)
>> + return !memcmp(mdesc->vmpck, zero_key, VMPCK_KEY_LEN);
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>
> This function looks silly in a header with that array allocation.
>
> I think you should simply do:
>
> if (memchr_inv(mdesc->vmpck, 0, VMPCK_KEY_LEN))
Just a minor nit, it will need a negation:
if (!memchr_inv(mdesc->vmpck, 0, VMPCK_KEY_LEN))
> at the call sites and not have this helper at all.
>
> But please do verify whether what I'm saying actually makes sense and if it
> does, this can be a cleanup pre-patch.
Yes, it makes sense. I have verified the code and below is the cleanup pre-patch.
